I spent a big chunk of the day writing the previous post and now don’t have time to give this blog post the attention it deserves. But you guys are sharp; I betcha you can find in it the same logical fallacies that I did. I’ll come back and discuss it further if I get a break.
I couldn’t get past the opening sentences:
It’s very difficult to anticipate the future. That’s one of the reasons government should be kept small, and tightly controlled…
Sara Robinson wrote Stealing Our Future: Conservatives, Foresight, and Why Nothing Works Anymore, a powerful indictment of this nihilistic, know-nothing viewpoint we’ve had to suffer with for the last 2-3 decades. I won’t even touch the logical fallacies here; my anger burns at how rightards have systematically destroyed this formerly great country – and this attitude toward planning was one huge aspect of it. I’ll quote a bit from Sara’s article (you’ll want to read the whole piece):
Are you angry yet?
“The ethics laws Governor Palin signed in 2007, which caused her to prematurely end a remarkably successful term as governor in 2009, are a perfect example of this principle”.
remarkably successful ?
Good comment, Moonbat. Thanks.
It’s been a while since my Logic 101 days, but the way it’s supposed to go is: A. major premise, B. minor premise, C. conclusion–not A. conclusion, B. opinion, C. whatever fits with A and B.
Best I can say is, the author is of the confident and clueless variety; one who knows not, and knows not he knows not.
“A legal device like Alaska’s drive-thru ethical complaint system will always do more damage in the hands of political operations, than good in the hands of well-meaning individual citizens.”
Very Limbaughesque!. Just tainted bullshit intended to prey on the gullible.
“The only reliable way to keep politicians honest is to limit the inventory of power they have to sell, so bribing them won’t be worth the effort. ”
Paraphrase this to:
“Since a strong, vigorous federal governement is the only entity with the size scope and authority to curb the abuses of big business, banking, oil, health insurance, etc we want the government to be small and impotent so corporations can fully exploit the average citizen, the environmant and 3rd world nations without interference.”
I get it! This is one of those reading comprehension tests…you have us looking to find fallacies when the title tells us right from the beginning that it’s all “hot air”. It’s one big fallacy ,and if our comprehension skills were in order than we would know that from the outset.
Although I did know that the blog post was going to be drivel because I recognized the registered HOT AIR trademark as a venom belonging to Michelle Malkin.
1. It’s very difficult to anticipate the future. That’s one of the reasons government should be kept small, and tightly controlled.
This is a negative prediction of the future which attempts to defend against the uncertainty of future and generates anxiety in the subsystem at the same time. This kind of thing feeds itself. It predicts negative action without any actual data in the present. Functional systems are data based more than anxiety and retaliatory impulse based.
2. Big Government is a blindfolded ogre with a chainsaw. Government programs always have unintended consequences – often the exact opposite of the legislators’ intentions.
This can be observed in most any human endeavor and is especially self-serving here.
3. The ethics reforms championed and signed by Palin in 2007 were meant to add accountability and transparency to state government, by making it easier for citizens to sue politicians for ethics violations.
OK fine, but reform requires good policy and mutual and cooperative implementation, or at least somewhat non-partisan. And, only the righties know how to do this?
4. Resources intended for use by responsible citizens will inevitably be abused by the most irresponsible forces in public life.
Another anxiety driven prediction that reflects world view. Hmm, “most irresponsible forces in public life”. Does this mean anyone that says me nay? Remember what the studies say about righties enduring anxiety and uncertainty.
5. The lovely dream of the lone citizen crusader, using his lunch hour to file a complaint against an untouchable crook in high office, fades into the ugly reality of groups like ACORN, issuing target lists to their foot soldiers.
Jimmy Stewart died a long time ago and just who is it, besides endorphin intoxicated teens, that have lovely dreams of white knights when it comes to an adversarial mode political system?
6. Both of them were trying to construct ethical safety valves for fundamentally corrupt systems.
Again, the world viewed through dark lenses that puts energy towards the very outcomes which they purport not to want–minimally corrupted systems. Yes people are base when they have lost sight of the system as a whole and govern/operate only from a self-centered perspective.
But if one can do naught but lament that the system will only fail us, then the system will in fact live up to that expectation. This is so because the viewer’s behavior that will manifest through those dark lenses will be perceived as threatening and guarAHNtee an equally anxious response that must try and preempt the darkness–>fight on! Not functional and not representative for citizens.
It’s very difficult to anticipate the future. That’s one of the reasons government should be kept small, and tightly controlled.
For instance, get rid of FEMA. It’s difficult to anticipate natural disasters (especially if you ignore the warnings you receive), so it’s best not to be prepared whatsoever.
(I see Moonbat is much more thorough on the same line.)
Do I need to go past the first paragraph?
Oh, yeah, the argument about ethics investigations impeding ethics is also a keeper.
Also: Sargent.
That’s a classic right-winger post – it features horribly flawed logic, and it’s factually inaccurate to boot.
For some reason, the link keeps crashing my browser. Wonder if it has anything to do with me using a mac.